A consortium of Portuguese lawyers files a complaint with the Ombudsman on behalf of 1,260 Golden Visa clients

A consortium made up of nine Portuguese law firms has submitted a formal complaint to Portugal’s Ombudsman, Provedoria de Justiça, on behalf of 1,260 clients enrolled in the Golden Visa programme. The trigger is the impact of recent changes to Portugal’s citizenship rules, alongside protracted processing delays at the immigration authority AIMA (the Agency for Integration, Migration and Asylum).

The complaint asks the Ombudsman to step in within constitutional and legal boundaries, with the goal of safeguarding legitimate expectations. In the firms’ view, these are people who planned their futures and made life-changing decisions based on a legal framework Portugal presented as the foundation for investment-based migration.

Legally, the petition targets two fronts at once: legislative amendments and, as the lawyers put it, “multi-year administrative failures” within AIMA.

“Our aim is to correct a serious mistake and restore Portugal’s trust,” said Raquel Matos Esteves, managing partner at RME Legal, one of the consortium firms. She stressed that it is unacceptable to undermine the expectations of people who relied on the state—making decisions aligned with commitments supported by successive governments—only to face timelines of 3–5 years instead of the periods they were led to anticipate.

The complaint is also supported by Liberty Legal, Fieldfisher Portugal, Paxlegal, LexGO Legal and Finance, Maria Margarida Torres, AVCO Legal, AGPC and BRF Legal. Submitting the filing is described as the third stage of a coordinated protection strategy that began with an amicus curiae submission to Portugal’s Constitutional Court in December 2025, and continues in parallel with a collective lawsuit against the Portuguese state.

A citizenship law without a broad transition mechanism

The new citizenship law took effect on 19 May. For most foreign nationals, the residence requirement for naturalisation has been extended from 5 to 10 years. For EU citizens and nationals of Portuguese-speaking countries (CPLP), the requirement is set at 7 years.

What lawyers find most problematic for Golden Visa holders is the absence of a wide-ranging transition regime. A separate provision (Article 7.2) protects applications for citizenship submitted before 18 May 2026. However, investors who had not yet been able to move forward with their applications at the time of the changes—often because AIMA did not issue residence documentation on time—do not benefit from that protection.

A central point of contention is how the residence period is calculated. Under the new rules, “time spent living in Portugal” begins to run from the moment AIMA issues the authorisation, not from the date the application was filed.

“Clients complied with every requirement: the investment, the conditions, and the fees. Yet they are still being penalised for administrative shortcomings and regulatory changes they did not cause,” said Sara Oliveira (LexGO).

Catarina Almeida Garrett of AGPC described the filing as a defence of people who acted in good faith. “Investors, families, and residents who made decisions in good faith within the legal system that was in place deserve fair treatment and transitional protection,” she said, adding that protecting legitimate expectations helps Portugal maintain its reputation as a reliable destination for global investors and talent.

What the Ombudsman can do—and what it cannot

Provedor de Justiça is an independent constitutional body that protects citizens (including foreign nationals) from unlawful or unfair actions by public administration. The Ombudsman can conduct investigations, request documents, and examine state bodies without prior notice.

At the same time, the Ombudsman does not issue binding, enforceable decisions.

Instead, it may issue recommendations to remedy unfairness and can approach the Constitutional Court to assess the constitutionality or legality of a legal provision.

For the consortium—already challenging the law on constitutional grounds—this is precisely the mechanism they are aiming to activate.

According to Emelina Oliveira (Paxlegal), the complaint goes beyond investors’ interests and touches the state’s very “architecture.” In her view, the filing is “the first step in defending and advancing the fundamental principles of a rule-of-law democratic state in Portugal.”

Whatever decisions the government makes, the lawyers argue that the rule of law requires predictability, consistency, and respect for the rights of citizens and foreign residents protected by law.

The firms say they expect a direct meeting with the Ombudsman. What happens next—whether a recommendation is issued, a Constitutional Court request is filed, or no response is forthcoming—remains to be seen.

A growing dispute and a widening response

The Ombudsman complaint forms part of an escalation path. The consortium has already outlined potential steps: seeking state liability for damages arising from the legislative changes, challenging matters in national courts, and—once domestic remedies are exhausted—taking the case to the European Court of Human Rights.

Meanwhile, reports suggest the Portuguese government is not prepared to back down. Recently, the Minister of the Prime Minister’s Office, António Leitão Amaro, accused investment-migration consultants of misleading clients about how quickly they could obtain citizenship. The consortium rejects these claims, describing them as an attempt to rewrite the story of a programme the state promoted and benefited from for more than a decade.

Sara Oliveira put the lawyers’ position plainly: “There will be more actions. Our duty as lawyers is not to stop fighting in the face of this injustice.”

The government has 90 days from the law’s publication (19 May) to update subordinate regulations, namely the Regulamento da Nacionalidade Portuguesa. However, as of now, AIMA and the Institute of Registries and Notaries (IRN) have not published procedural clarifications.

Until those instructions appear, the situation for thousands of applicants whose files are still under review remains uncertain—an uncertainty the consortium is asking the Ombudsman to address.

Expert note: One lesser-known aspect of the Golden Visa Portugal landscape is how “evidence timing” can matter as much as the legal thresholds themselves. In practice, authorities often evaluate the applicant’s overall compliance record—documents, tax and residence documentation, and the continuity of status—at different stages. For applicants, this means that even when the investment itself was made correctly, delays or mismatches in supporting records can influence how officials interpret eligibility and timelines. That is why many specialists advise building an audit trail early (with dated submissions and proof of residence status) so that future administrative reviews are less vulnerable to shifting interpretations.

If you’ve already applied for Portugal Golden Visa or are planning investment migration, it’s crucial to stay up to date: legal changes and AIMA processing delays can affect timelines and expectations. The Digital Nomad team will help you understand the current landscape, assess risks, and choose the right next steps with qualified experts.

Our Telegram channel about various types of Greek residence permits, digital nomad programs, and the Greek Golden Visa: @digitalnomadgr